for: empathy, self other dualism, symbolosphere, Deep Humanity, DH, othering, What is it like to be a bat?, Thomas Nagel, ingroup outgroup

• title: What is it Like to be a Bat?
• author: Thomas Nagel

• date: Oct 1974

• comment

  • Forget about what it's like to be a bat, what's it like to be another human!
  • This is a paper that can deepen our understanding of what it means to be empathetic and also its opposite, what it means to participate in othering. In the fragmented , polarized world we live in, these are very important explorations.
  • Insofar as the open source Deep Humanity praxis is focused on exploring the depths of our humanity to help facilitate the great transition through the meaning / meta / poly crisis embroiling humanity, knowing what the "other" means is very salient.

NOTE - references - for references to any words used in this annotation which you don't understand, please use the tool in the following link to search all of Stop Reset Go's annotations. Chances are that any words you do not understand are explored in our other annotations. Go to the link below and type the word in the "ANY" field to find the annotator's contextual understanding, salience and use of any words used here

https://jonudell.info/h/facet/?max=100&expanded=true&user=stopresetgo&exactTagSearch=true

• for: transition, uncertainty, uncertainty - neuroscience, ingroup, outgroup, letting go, lifetime student
• paraphrase
  • Uncertainty brings
    • immune system deterioration
    • brain cells wither and even die
    • creativity and intelligence decrease
  • We often go from fear to anger because fear is a state of certainty.
  • We become morally judgmental, an extreme version of oneself.
    • conservatives become ultra-conservative
    • liberals become ultra liberal.
  • because we retreat to a place of safety and familiarity.
  • The problem is that the world changes.
  • Since we have to adapt or die, if we want to shift from A to B,
    • the first step is not B.
    • the first step is to go from A to not A
      • to let go of our biases and assumptions;
      • to step into the very place that our brain evolved to avoid;
      • to step into the place of the unknown.
      • to step into a liminal space
• comment
  • Uncertainty is uncomfortable
  • and can drive us into our familiar, accepted, insular ingroup
  • In other words, lead to greater social polarization.
  • Adaptation requires us to step into the unknown.
  • Big changes in our lives therefore require us to go
    • from the familiar and comfortable space,
    • to the unfamiliar and uncomfortable
      • movement away from our comfort zone, as is happening as the polycrisis we face gains traction.

Šrol, J., Cavojova, V., & Mikušková, E. B. (2021). Social consequences of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs: Evidence from two studies in Slovakia. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/y4svc

Once we give ourselves over absolutely to a cultural immortality belief system, that is when our complete identification can emerge a self-righteousness so powerful that any other mortality-denying system that claims to be the truth and therefore threatens ours, must be eliminated.

This is another example that our culture has reached an inflection point, when we begin to divert previous time and material resources on conflict because we are not wise enough to cooperate, instead of more urgent problems affecting us all.

The journey of civilization to a technological modernity places us in a precarious position. The fundamental misunderstandings arising from a toxic mix of different political, religious and cultural ideologies threatens to destabilise the human project. We are spending ever increasing resources on defensive and offensive technologies to protect our ingroup against perceived outgroups instead of technologies for defending against the destruction of the global commons which e ourselves have brought about and which threatens our entire species.

By so doing, we create a self-reinforcing feedback loop of antagonism which increases the likelihood of violence.

This underscores the urgency for deep inner transformation, trapping into our deep Humanity to mitigate the social antagonism that is so destructive to global society.

Thinking in solitary can increase one's susceptibility to confirmation bias. Thinking in groups can mitigate this.

How might keeping one's notes in public potentially help fight against these cognitive biases?

Is having a "conversation in the margins" with an author using annotation tools like Hypothes.is a way to help mitigate this sort of cognitive bias?

At the far end of the spectrum how do we prevent this social thinking from becoming groupthink, or the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility?

Bressan, P. (2021). Strangers look sicker (with implications in times of COVID-19). PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/x4unv

Atkisson, C., & Finn, K. (2020). Redundant relationships in multiplex food sharing networks increase food security in a nutritionally precarious environment. ArXiv:2011.12817 [Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.12817

Cruwys, T., Stevens, M., Donaldson, J. L., Cardenas, D., Platow, M. J., Reynolds, K. J., & Fong, P. (2021). Perceived COVID-19 risk is attenuated by ingroup trust: Evidence from three empirical studies. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/94sd3

Kramer, P., & Bressan, P. (2021). Infection threat shapes our social instincts. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pbf4d

Harper, Craig A., and Darren Rhodes. ‘Ideological Responses to the Breaking of COVID-19 Social Distancing Recommendations’, 19 August 2020. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dkqj6.

Harper, Craig A., and Darren Rhodes. ‘Ideological Responses to the Breaking of COVID-19 Social Distancing Recommendations’, 19 August 2020. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dkqj6.

Harper, Craig A., and Darren Rhodes. ‘Ideological Responses to the Breaking of COVID-19 Social Distancing Recommendations’, 19 August 2020. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dkqj6.

This interpretation of Christian eschatology, based on futurism, presents a utopia is exclusive by its very nature. There isn't just the battle of good vs. evil, of Yahweh vs. Ha-satan, but also a final judgment and the annihilation of "unsaved" souls.

But like I stated previously, even modern concepts of utopian societies are exclusive in at least some, or many ways. There is something that we have to sacrifice or give up, or communities/groups that we have to exclude, in order to achieve the ideal. Then again, what is the ideal? In ancient literature the utopian society is metaphysical in nature, based largely on the concept of an afterlife. Within the context of an afterlife there is no human experience or condition, so the ideal, whatever that may be, can be achieved. If it's an afterlife, and one often depicted in Western literature, film, art, etc., then it is devoid of the trials and tribulations that make the human condition what it is, and make us what we are: imperfect.

But in the real world, outside a utopian afterlife, the human condition is alive and well. Conflict and struggles persist. There is an aspect of control earth-based utopian societies, and one could even say the classic heaven-based utopian concept is not without its own set of rules governed by Yahweh, Jesus, et al.